MovieChat Forums > Zombieland (2009) Discussion > My analysis for the intro.

My analysis for the intro.

posted 8 years ago by lvis-18548
4 replies | jump to latest

I'm going to give my analysis for all the scenes in the intro (scene numbers may not be accurate). Oh, yeah. "It's just a movie" doesn't answer any of my questions.

Scene 1: From what it looks like, it's a prison watchtower with the prisoner zombie and the guard jumping to what looks like his death. And the stairs are right next to where he's jumping from. How did the zombie get up there without this guard noticing (I'm going to assume the zombie didn't use the stairs)?

Scene 2: Nothing special. Just a redneck zombie barfing blood.

Scene 3: Again, nothing special. Just a woman running from a female zombie while holding a drink.

Scene 4: The guy holding the "End is Near" sign. Looks as if he's not even trying to run. When you can see a fat lady running in the background.

Scene 5: I'm going to assume that the two zombies chasing the man with the money briefcase were bitten before they met up. Possibly the money briefcase man was planning on buying a gun (or drugs). Also, the fire on the car doesn't look very real.

Scene 6: Assuming that guys from SWAT are getting their asses handed to them by two random zombies. Why do they have riot shields out? They're in SWAT by the looks of it, so I'm assuming they have guns.

Scene 7: A zombie bride attacking the groom. Still wondering how these people get infected. Unless maybe the virus is airborn? Also, that *beep* filming it in the background.

Scene 8: I don't know what this guy is trying to break.

Scene 9: I love that guy in the background trying to run with his beer. Also, how did the guy in the front escape the strip club (he had money in his hands, and is being chased by a stripper zombie, so that's what I'm assuming he's coming from)?

Scene 10: Mechanic being speared by a zombie. Nothing exciting.

Scene 11: Notice how the father and son's legs are tied together, which means they were in a 3 legged race. Again, HOW THE HELL DID THE OTHER FATHER/SON ZOMBIES GET INFECTED?!!?!?!

Scene 12: Fat black guy running from an equally fat zombie.

Scene 13: I love how the fireman's buddy is running away and the fireman doing his job doesn't even notice the zombie that's on fire coming for him.

Scene 14: I love that little nod to Scarface. If only that guy would TURN AROUND. How did he not notice a fatass zombie running behind him?

Scene 15: I don't know if this was just a random camera in the car, or if the camera was supposed to be a person in the car's perspective of seeing a zombie fly on his windshield.

Also,The way these scenes look, it seems like people just randomly turned into zombies in the middle of activities.

[–] GreyHunter 8 years ago

I'm not going to go with the "It's just a movie" answer. Rather, I'm going with the "It's just a comedy" one. That actually answers all your questions -- they deliberately chose ridiculous and unlikely scenes for the humor element. Father and son tied together for a three-legged race trying to escape zombies tied together for a three-legged race? Completely silly and that was the point. Guy with fist full of money trying to escape zombie stripper? Completely silly and that was the point. Might as well ask how Cynthia Knickerbocker managed to hoist a piano up above her doorway. It was ludicrous, and intentionally so...for the comic effect.

This answers your questions because the movie-makers intended these scenes to be somewhat nonsensical. As such, there's no possible way to analyze them seriously. If these had been simple errors, then you could at least criticize the movie-makers. But they weren't, so the most you can legitimately do is say you didn't find them funny, which is a fair opinion to have (or not have.) I was amused. You clearly weren't. It's all good.

[–] lvis-18548 8 years ago

I didn't say I didn't find them funny (or amusing). Amazingly, this is actually my favorite movie of all time. I actually watch this movie at least once a day. Just felt the need to analyze some stuff that I didn't notice the first few times I watched it.

[–] GreyHunter 8 years ago

Once a day is a bit more than I could manage, but it's certainly a fun movie to watch. In any event, as I said, I think analyzing these particular scenes would be fruitless because they were intended to be incongruous from the start. It's like watching "Airplane!" and asking how the inflatable autopilot would ever manage to steer a plane. If this were, say, "Dawn of the Dead," then it would certainly be entirely reasonable to ask how these situations could possibly have occurred because Romero wasn't aiming for comedy (for the most part.)

[–] lvis-18548 8 years ago

A bit to manage? I agree with you there, but it's pretty fun to pause scenes and look at what's in the background that you couldn't notice the first time(s) you watched the movie because maybe you were focusing on the characters rather than what's in the background. Also I have it on DVD, so I have a few deleted scenes from the movie that were good scenes, but I can understand why they were taken out. For example, in one scene, a boom mic is clearly visible. In another, the green screen is too obvious. I also learned that the beginning scene with the White House was shot in a parking lot in Georgia (or something to that effect.